On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 15:27:56 +0000, Stewart Gordon wrote:
> We already have a more comprehensive unofficial D wish list:
>
> http://www.wikiservice.at/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?FeatureRequestList
>
Nice list!
The problem is that you can't see how strong the wish is.
So, there is no way to see if it is just a crazy idea or something
people really want.
Knud

> The problem is that you can't see how strong the wish is.
> So, there is no way to see if it is just a crazy idea or something
> people really want.
FWIW:
The open source Audacity project has an interesting "voting" page for
feature requests
http://audacityteam.org/FeatureRequest.php

Knud Sørensen wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 15:27:56 +0000, Stewart Gordon wrote:
>
>> We already have a more comprehensive unofficial D wish list:
>>
>> http://www.wikiservice.at/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?FeatureRequestList
>
> Nice list!
>
> The problem is that you can't see how strong the wish is.
> So, there is no way to see if it is just a crazy idea or something
> people really want.
Your poll has a few problems:
1. No means is provided of modifying a feature proposal or even adding
comments. So if someone feels that
- a feature's description is far too content-free to vote on
- the specifics want reworking a bit
- a proposal consists of two somewhat different issues, and they need to
be separated
then there's no way to propose any change or clarification.
For example, some of my comments would be to the effect of:
(a) A few of the descriptions effectively do nothing but repeat the
title of the proposal, and provide none of the necessary information to
know what really is being proposed.
(b) The proposed "!new" syntax is redundant with "null". Though
personally, that whole proposal would go on my bad idea list....
(c) If we're going to enforce black-box unit testing, then the syntactic
salt for white-box tests ought to be in the code, rather than on the
command line.
(d) The description of "Array initialization/literals" covers only
initialization, not literals (but I agree that they should be two
separate proposals)
(e) "Javadoc documentation" isn't really a language feature, but
something that can be developed separately from the language and
compiler. So is it really on-topic here?
2. No semantics of not ranking a given proposal are clarified. People
could use it to mean:
- I'm just not sure how important this feature is
- I don't care for it
- I think it's a bad idea
- One of the issues of point 1 is making me not sure about it
- This proposal wasn't listed when I voted
and you won't be sure what the abstainers are meaning.
3. What if someone wants to change his/her/its mind; moreover, revote
now that the list has grown?
Stewart.
--
My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox. Please keep replies on
the 'group where everyone may benefit.

In article <pan.2005.03.03.16.23.03.684303@sneakemail.com>,
=?iso-8859-1?q?Knud_S=F8rensen?= says...
>
>On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 15:27:56 +0000, Stewart Gordon wrote:
>
>
>> We already have a more comprehensive unofficial D wish list:
>>
>> http://www.wikiservice.at/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?FeatureRequestList
>>
>Nice list!
>
>The problem is that you can't see how strong the wish is.
>So, there is no way to see if it is just a crazy idea or something
>people really want.
>
>Knud
I suspect that Walter is more persuaded by one strong argument in this newsgroup
group than ten "me-too" votes on a wish list.
jcc7

J C Calvarese wrote:
>
>
> I suspect that Walter is more persuaded by one strong argument in this newsgroup
> group than ten "me-too" votes on a wish list.
>
> jcc7
Oftn, even strong argument doesn't have it's sway with Walter. ;-)

On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 17:01:38 +0000, Stewart Gordon wrote:
> Knud Sørensen wrote:
>> On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 15:27:56 +0000, Stewart Gordon wrote:
>>
>>> We already have a more comprehensive unofficial D wish list:
>>>
>>> http://www.wikiservice.at/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?FeatureRequestList
>>
>> Nice list!
>>
>> The problem is that you can't see how strong the wish is.
>> So, there is no way to see if it is just a crazy idea or something
>> people really want.
>
> Your poll has a few problems:
>
> 1. No means is provided of modifying a feature proposal or even adding
> comments. So if someone feels that
>
> - a feature's description is far too content-free to vote on
> - the specifics want reworking a bit
> - a proposal consists of two somewhat different issues, and they need to
> be separated
>
> then there's no way to propose any change or clarification.
My suggestion is that you make a better suggestion and post it !
May the best suggestion win ;-)
I will then make some clean up, if the is doublets.
> For example, some of my comments would be to the effect of:
>
> (a) A few of the descriptions effectively do nothing but repeat the
> title of the proposal, and provide none of the necessary information to
> know what really is being proposed.
> (b) The proposed "!new" syntax is redundant with "null". Though
> personally, that whole proposal would go on my bad idea list....
agree with !new, like the auto new stuff.
> (c) If we're going to enforce black-box unit testing, then the syntactic
> salt for tests ought to be in the code, rather than on the
> command line.
No, consider a team where one developer cheat and compile with
--allow-white-box, then the other developers will notice as soon
they compile the code.
If you hide the white-box stuff in the code they might never know
and we would not be enforcing black-box testing would we ??
> (d) The description of "Array initialization/literals" covers only
> initialization, not literals (but I agree that they should be two
> separate proposals)
>
> (e) "Javadoc documentation" isn't really a language feature, but
> something that can be developed separately from the language and
> compiler. So is it really on-topic here?
> 2. No semantics of not ranking a given proposal are clarified. People
> could use it to mean:
> - I'm just not sure how important this feature is
> - I don't care for it
> - I think it's a bad idea
> - One of the issues of point 1 is making me not sure about it
> - This proposal wasn't listed when I voted
Agree, I will add something about it in the weekend.
> and you won't be sure what the abstainers are meaning.
>
> 3. What if someone wants to change his/her/its mind; moreover, revote
> now that the list has grown?

On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 18:10:21 +0000, J C Calvarese wrote:
> In article <pan.2005.03.03.16.23.03.684303@sneakemail.com>,
> =?iso-8859-1?q?Knud_S=F8rensen?= says...
>>
>>On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 15:27:56 +0000, Stewart Gordon wrote:
>>
>>
>>> We already have a more comprehensive unofficial D wish list:
>>>
>>> http://www.wikiservice.at/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?FeatureRequestList
>>>
>>Nice list!
>>
>>The problem is that you can't see how strong the wish is.
>>So, there is no way to see if it is just a crazy idea or something
>>people really want.
>>
>>Knud
>
> I suspect that Walter is more persuaded by one strong argument in this newsgroup
> group than ten "me-too" votes on a wish list.
I think we should leave the decision to Walter!
This newsgroup get more and more traffic as D spreads
and would we rather that Walter spends time improving D
or that He read every post on this newsgroup ???
The wish list is just a way to collect the ideas
from the group, so that one can get a fast overview
when needed.
> jcc7

Knud Sørensen wrote:
<snip>
>> (c) If we're going to enforce black-box unit testing, then the
>> syntactic salt for tests ought to be in the code, rather than on
>> the command line.
>
> No, consider a team where one developer cheat and compile with
> --allow-white-box, then the other developers will notice as soon they
> compile the code.
If by your conception using --allow-white-box is cheating, why allow it
at all?
> If you hide the white-box stuff in the code they might never know and
> we would not be enforcing black-box testing would we ??
<snip>
What have you against white-box tests? I.e. if someone _wants_ to put
in some code to test the internal workings, why give the outside user
the trouble of knowing that they have to compile with --allow-white-box?
My point is that there should be a notation to separate the white-box
tests (to check that it works from the developer's point of view) from
the black-box tests (to check that it works from the user's point of view).
Stewart.
--
My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox. Please keep replies on
the 'group where everyone may benefit.